The result was entirely expected, since the Oklahoma amendment explicitly mentioned sharia, which meant it was bound to be overruled under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. This despite the fact that 70% of Oklahoma’s voted in favor of it.

In order to be effective, opponents of sharia would be well-advised to adopt wording that is neutral with respect to any religion, and simply rules out any application of “foreign law” within the state. One of the best alternatives is known as “American Laws for American Courts”, an initiative of the American Public Policy Alliance. Interested readers will want to look at ALAC’s model legislation. An FAQ page provides further information.

Statement by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, concerning the 10th Circuit Court’s ruling on the amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution concerning shariah:

As an adamant opponent of shariah and a strong supporter of efforts to prevent its insinuation into our country through our courts or other stealthy means, I welcome yesterday’s ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The amendment — while well intentioned — was crafted in a way that invited this outcome.

With 10th Circuit’s disposition of this case, it should now be possible to pursue in Oklahoma and elsewhere across the country other means of achieving the same end — namely, protecting American citizens from foreign laws whose application in U.S. courts would violate their constitutional rights or state public policy. This was the clear desire of 70% of the voters in Oklahoma in the 2010 referendum and is a sentiment shared by millions of their countrymen.

Fortunately, legislation that meets these tests has been developed by the American Public Policy Alliance. Known as “American Laws for American Courts” (or ALAC), it has already been enacted in three states and is expected to be considered in about twenty others in 2012.

The Center for Security Policy looks forward to working with Americans who share its commitment to the Constitution and its determination to prevent that founding document from being weakened or eviscerated by foreign laws, including shariah, to ensure that American laws are practiced in American courts.

I’ll be glad when every state in the Union passes its own version of ALAC’s model legislation. That will build fifty speed bumps in the road to Islamic Hell that is now being planned for America by Hillary Clinton and her allies in the OIC.

Evidently, even Frank Gaffney is missing the point. You cannot separate sharia law from Islam.Sharia law is not "foreign law", it is not the law of one or more special countries. In the view of Islam, sharia law is universal law that should dominate equally the whole world by all means.The fundamental mistake is that Islam is a religion. It is not a religion like other religions, it is a political ideology with the main purpose of conquering all countries.Former American presidents have recognized Islam as a religion and made it "salonfähig" for the USA. This is the road to serfdom and if Frank Gaffney wants to save his country, he should counter Islam as such. However, meanwhile, this has become far too dangerous for any Western political leader. For them, countering Islam as such is political and probably physical suicide.

Oklahoma deserves a sound lashing over this. Just like Arizona deserved with SB 1070. Where is the review process that says "Hold up. You can't mention anything specifically. You can't say it like that -- we're going to have a problem here." SB 1070 was the same way. Its wording made one doubt it had even been reviewed with foresight into how it would most likely be received by a court. Live and learn I guess, but that's basic, basic stuff. Shamefully sloppy execution considering the seriousness of the matter and considering they should already know in advance these judges are looking for any excuse to block this type of legislation. To have it blocked for the reason it was is just awful. We simply cannot afford these types of bumbling, ham-handed errors by our representatives. If I were an Oklahoma resident, I would be absolutely livid. -- RoR

I agree with RoR. The matter of protecting US law from foreign influence is far too serious for partisan bungling.

The funny thing is, it is not difficult to craft legislation in general terms that will disallow the use of Sharia law in US courts. The law would read something like:

Court decisions can be based on explicit US law or English common law only. US courts are prohibited from enforcing or interpreting the provisions of any law other than that.

The problem comes from the fact that some US courts have engaged in the illegitimate practice of enforcing decisions by other religious bodies. For example, the New York courts treat the decisions of the Beth Din (Jewish Orthodox courts) as enforceable. It is true that the Beth Din stays within strict limits of people who wish to be under the authority of Orthodox Jewish rabbis. Nevertheless, US courts should not be involved in religious decisions. Such practices can easily be subsumed under the arbitration laws.

But Shariais not a "specific" term but a general term referring to a globally defined and recognized program of established religion (in the sense of a religion that has a privileged place in the law).

Thus it is specifically Constitutional to identify it as such and prohibit its use in U.S. courts as a basis for legal decisions.

The "general language" demand is a mask for imposing undue and unconstitutional restrictions on the practice of Christian religions. It is not motivated by any serious concern for legal principle. It is a way to avoid having to exclude Sharia because it will not be "foreign", as it is demanded by U.S. citizens in the "practice of religion" and it will not be considered establishment of religion because it is distinct from the religion itself...principles of Sharia can be applied to persons of any religion or of no religion (of course, it doesn't treat them the same, but it does have established rules for all of them).

All efforts to drive out the consequences of Islam while at the same time respecting Islam as an acceptable thing, are pointless.It is just like "the war on terror"which was launched by George W. Bush in close cooperation with Islam as a "noble religion", fully welcome in the U.S.A., while most acts of terrorism are "made in Islam". You cannot defend yourself against an enemy without naming him by its name and without explaining to the public why he is your enemy.